Goins v. Murphy et al
Filing
6
PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 6/21/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 7/20/2012), Answer updated for Michael Lajoie to 1/31/2012; Brian K. Murphy to 1/31/2012; Lauren Powers to 1/31/2012; Angel Quiros to 1/31/2012. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 11/10/11. (Corriette, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
STEPHEN L. GOINS,
Plaintiff,
PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-858(AWT)
v.
BRIAN K. MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Northern
Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, has filed a
complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
He sues Commissioner of
Correction Brian K. Murphy, District Administrator Michael
Lajoie, Warden Angel Quiros and Deputy Warden Lauren Powers.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review
prisoner civil complaints against governmental actors and
“dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted,” or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.”
Id.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Although detailed
allegations are not required, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.
A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
A complaint that
includes only “‘labels and conclusions,’ ‘a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action’ or
‘naked assertion[s]’
devoid of ‘further factual enhancement,’ ” does not meet the
facial plausibility standard.
Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts still
have an obligation to liberally construe a pro se complaint, see
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), the complaint
must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the standard
of facial plausibility.
The plaintiff alleges that the Department of Correction
designated him as a Security Risk Group Safety Threat Member and
that he was required to participate in a three-phase program at
Northern.
On or about July 15, 2010, he began phase one of the
program and was permitted one hour out of his cell to exercise.
During the other twenty-three hours, he was confined to his cell.
In October 2009, Commissioner Brian Murphy authorized a new
policy requiring inmates in the phase program at Northern to be
handcuffed behind their backs during recreation.
The plaintiff
claims that he has been forced to exercise with his hands cuffed
behind his back from July 15, 2010 to February 16, 2011.
The
plaintiff alleges that he has been unable to engage in meaningful
exercise with his hands behind his back and has suffered neck and
2
shoulder pain and cuts and abrasions on his wrists.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
To the extent that
plaintiff sues the defendants in their official capacities, the
claims for money damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985)
(Eleventh Amendment,
which protects the state from suits for monetary relief, also
protects state officials sued for damages in their official
capacity); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (Section
1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The claims for money damages against the defendants in their
official capacities are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(2).
After reviewing the complaint, the court concludes that the
case should proceed at this time as to the claims against all
defendants in their individual capacities.
ORDERS
The court enters the following orders:
(1)
The claims against defendants for monetary damages in
their official capacities are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(2).
The claims in the complaint shall proceed against
all defendants in their individual capacities.
(2)
Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, the Pro Se
Prisoner Litigation Office shall ascertain from the Department of
Correction Office of Legal Affairs the current work addresses for
the defendants and mail waiver of service of process request
3
packets to each defendant in his or her individual capacity at
his or her current work address.
On the thirty-fifth (35th) day
after mailing, the Pro Se Office shall report to the court on the
status of all waiver requests.
If any defendant fails to return
the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for inperson service by the U.S. Marshals Service and the defendant
shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
(3)
The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a
courtesy copy of the complaint and this Order to the Connecticut
Attorney General and the Department of Correction Legal Affairs
Unit.
(4)
The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send
written notice to the plaintiff of the status of this action,
along with a copy of this Order.
(5)
Defendants shall file their response to the complaint,
either an answer or motion to dismiss, within seventy (70) days
from the date of this Order.
If the defendants choose to file an
answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to
the cognizable claims recited above.
They may also include any
and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
(6)
Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days)
from the date of this Order.
Discovery requests need not be
filed with the court.
4
(7)
All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within
eight months (240 days) from the date of this Order.
(8)
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a non-moving party
must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days
of the date the motion was filed.
If no response is filed, or
the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted
absent objection.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 10th day of November 2011, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?